Apple agrees to become Qualcomm's licensee and returns to their baseband chips

Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on April 20, 2019 10:49 am wrote:
> Groo (charlie.delete@this.semiaccurate.com) on April 20, 2019 6:50 am wrote:
> > Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on April 19, 2019 1:19 pm wrote:
> >
> > > Well, that's the mark of any good conspiracy theory, isn't it? That it grows
> > > from nefarious individual actors up to cosmic consequences: Tim Cook and Apple
> > > were willing to destroy America at the bidding of their Chinese masters!
> >
> > Are you willfully ignorant or trolling? Did you read the article
> > I posted above and on Twitter? Allow me to repost it.
> >
> > https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/04/19/apple-said-qualcomms-tech-was-no-good-private-communications-it-was-best/?utm_term=.be58892b15ae
> >
> > You are simply dead wrong. If you don't think so, go read the documents submitted in the trial.
> >
> > -Charlie
>
> Like I said on Twitter, Charlie, the article says two things (simplifying just slightly):
> - Apple agrees that QC modems are the best
> - Apple says that QC PATENTS should not be considered especially
> valuable compared to the other patents in the 5G patent pool
>
> These are NOT contradictions. One is a statement about QC's implementation.
> The other is a statement about what QC has patented.
> Insofar as the patents are FRAND, EVERYONE has to do that stuff the same way
> -- so it can't be part of the difference between QC and everyone else.
>
> So what's the difference? It could be in non-FRAND patents. It could be in trade secrets and
> know-how. If it's the non-FRAND patents, well the WaPo story never quite says (because it's
> written by journalists+lawyers and is all over the place) but strongly implies that Apple was
> arguing over the COMPULSORY ie FRAND royalty rates. Likewise trade secrets are secrets.
>
> ie there is no contradiction between saying
> - QC has the best patented (nonFRAND) and trade secret based implementation AND
> - what QC has provided to the FRAND community is not especially valuable, it's simply there because QC managed
> to persuade the standards committee to adopt their way rather than any of multiple alternatives.
>
>

The contradiction is over Apple's internally acknowledged findings about 3G/4G LTE patents:

Another Apple memo described Qualcomm as having a “unique patent share” and “significant holdings.”

An internal memo from an accountant in 2009 said Qualcomm is “widely considered the owner of the strongest patent portfolio for essential and relevant patents for wireless standards,” according to a document revealed in court.

versus what they stated in their complaints and to regulators:

Apple has argued that Qualcomm’s patents were no more valuable than those of competitors like Ericsson and Huawei, but Qualcomm argued in court that the documents show otherwise.

All of these lies and unproductive aggression will probably come back to haunt Tim Cook.